0 sats \ 3 replies \ @notgeld 27 Aug 2023 \ parent \ on: I was a well-paid blockchain / web3 dev for years, but became disillusioned. bitcoin
Okay. There are several multisigs possible now in Bitcoin. One of them allows to use only one threshold key. So other methods seem to be inferior and excessive from that point.
But in fact what I am talking about is that Bitcoin is the clock, time-stamping mechanism for data and there is no point in looking at data as useless as long as somebody paid for them. They are useful for somebody.
Somebody may look at your transaction as useless and generally don't like you for example because you transact from addresses with too many bitcoins. Your point is only slightly different that that.
All multisig methods serve the same purpose, some are more effective, some less. Of course, it's better to use more effective methods. Doesn't mean it can be equated to storing arbitrary trash that has nothing to do with tx validation and exists for the whole different purpose.
My transaction is only useless until my sats reach another person, maybe in a few years. But then this tx will be essential to validate the whole path to the coinbase. That's the only reason to store all transactions, to be able to validate them when someone pays you. No such purpose in storing the NFT garbage. Every time you pay (or open a channel) the other side absolutely wants to know the whole history of your inputs. Nobody but a few deluded people is interested in some payload that doesn't have anything to do with tx validation, and you gotta pretend you "own" something by tracing the sat history manually.
If your "non-fungible" sat becomes fungible the moment you stop believing in its non-fungibility, it wasn't in the first place. You're playing a stupid game and you will win very stupid prizes.
reply
Again you brought external definition for "trash".
STAMPs store data as pubkeys. Do you want to have a method for censoring transactions after introspection into multisigs and warning user that their multisig is not according to imaginary community codex of good multisigs? Because all your statements virtually lead to such conclusions. You just cant live with peace about any data put on blockchain and don't believe in market forces apparently.
reply
I said so many times in this thread that I can't and shouldn't be able to censor this garbage, why do you put words in my mouth that I not only never said, but actually said the opposite? I will discourage Bitcoin misuse and call those who promote such misuse enemies of Bitcoin. You don't like it? Then don't do it. Otherwise accept the label, many people think the same and will shame you into irrelevance.
No technical methods needed for that as they sure will bring much more harm than good, see BSV. Those who use ineffective multisigs can be educated, software can be improved to prefer more effective schemes because the goal is to store as little data as possible in the blocks while still achieving the ultimate goal of p2p digital money. Not monkeys or house ownership on chain that can't be enforced without external oracles anyway. Feel free to pollute the most valuable database on the planet, and I'll be free to tell everyone about your fiat time preference. Hope you're happy.
reply